The eternal flame of Muslim outrage

[Peikko 1,575]

Soff

lets be correct in what we say here.

Christians believe and follow the teachings of christ.

The death of Christ chnaged many laws in the bible and how we believe we will enter heaven.

Jesus taught love and compassion.

Where in the new testament does Jesus teach us to slay nonbelievers.

And please do not pull scripture out of context.

Yet, many is the war that has been fought on the premise that god approves of the slaying, incarceration and slavery of non-Christians. Amazing eh? No, not amazing at all. Geopolitics is all about the manipulation of religious affiliation for political ends. Who knew?

[cedwards001 18]

Sofiyya,

The Buddhist article you posted proves the main point I was trying to make, which is that RELIGION is the source of the problem. Just as you said before, other religions around the world are just as guilty of committing violence, not just Islam. That part I agree with 100%

People need to get it in their heads that religion is the problem. Case and point.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Soff

lets be correct in what we say here.

Christians believe and follow the teachings of christ.

The death of Christ chnaged many laws in the bible and how we believe we will enter heaven.

Jesus taught love and compassion.

Where in the new testament does Jesus teach us to slay nonbelievers.

And please do not pull scripture out of context.

I already covered that. BTW, you realize, no, that Muslims are followers of Jesus, too?

Sofiyya,

The Buddhist article you posted proves the main point I was trying to make, which is that RELIGION is the source of the problem. Just as you said before, other religions around the world are just as guilty of committing violence, not just Islam. That part I agree with 100%

People need to get it in their heads that religion is the problem. Case and point.

Religion isn't the problem. People are the problem.

I'm curious. Is there anyone here who thinks Malkin's OP ED piece reflects the views of a true Christian?

Edited September 13, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Peikko 1,575]

Believe what you want but I take them at their word, few people blow themselves up for a "Geopolitical" cause.

Do you think writing things in bold makes your words more legitimate? I have to say you make yourself ppear to be mind bogglingly ignorant by making such a statement. History is littered with sacrifices made by 'the people' in the name of geopolitical causes. Martyrs are a lot fewer and farther between - I doubt there is a single genuine martyr to be found in this century. It must be very wearing being a muslim having to constantly counteract this unforgivable ignorance. You are not oppressed Danno, you are not denied access to information, to source material, to time to study and yet you willfully ignore every opportunity afforded to you to acquire information, preferring to listen to hacks and partisan commentary. Shame on you.

I already covered that. BTW, you realize, no, that Muslims are followers of Jesus, too?

Religion isn't the problem. People are the problem.

I'm curious. Is there anyone here who thinks Malkin's OP ED piece reflects the views of a true Christian?

I expect a lot do. Polarization is so pretty.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

First, you need to understand that it is not WE who connect the acts of terrorists with Islam. The terrorists themselves do this. They claim they act by command of Allah. They quote the Quran to prove it. When you say their actions have nothing to do with Islam, I don't have to argue that point with you. THEY will argue it.

Note: I am addressing someone who pretends to know about the Bible and the Quran, but is not interested in the actuality of them. He prefers to lie and obfuscate, but while you can have your own opinions, you cannot have your own facts. My audience is those who don't pretend, but care to learn; he and those like him are merely a vehicle.

Ok. Whatever.

No, the Quran does not contain an everlasting call to violence that apply to today. Those it does have are situational and specific to that time and place.

That's your interpretation. Thankfully, it's also the interpretation of most Muslims in the western world. Unfortunately, it is not the interpretation of the Taliban or Al Qaeda or their ilk. Allah should have foreseen the obvious confusion it would cause by putting commands to fight in a book that's intended to provide everlasting guidance to believers for all time, and he should have chosen his words more carefully.

The Quran is a Message from God that was not written by any mortal. It pre-existed Muhammad and the earlier prophets.

Only Muslims believe this.

Both.

Quote me the scripture where God orders Christians or Jews to send non-believers to hell; i.e., to kill them.

There is nothing about this is in the Quran, and, like so many things that are not, there are many versions, depending on who is doing the telling.

Are you a Quran-only Muslimah? There are many sahih hadiths about the battle of Khaybar and Muhammad's marriage to Safiyya. Are you saying Muhammad didn't order al-Zubayr Al-Awwam to torture Kinana ibn al-Rabi, Safiyya's husband, until he gave up the goods about the treasures of Banu Nadir? Are you saying Muhammand didn't hand al-Rabi over to Muhammad bin Maslama to lob off his head? Are you saying Muhammad didn't marry Safiyya?

I made it clear that it was a parable, but its meaning was to explain what his mission.

If it's a parable then it's meant to teach a lesson, and NOT to be taken as a direct command. Jesus never order his followers to bring his enemies before him to be slain. He never ordered ANYONE to be slain. By that logic, I could be accused of ordering the mass slaughter of wolves for telling my daughter the story of Little Red Riding Hood.

Nothing in the Quran is a call to fight unless in self-defense. Why do the militaristic tones in some Biblical chapters arouse such denial? On what have Christians thoughout history depended upon to justify conquering lands and people for Jesus if not their Holy book?

Again, this is your interpretation. Since Islam lacks a supreme authority on Quranic interpretation, your interpretation is no more valid or binding on Muslims than OBL's.

If you'd read my other post, you'd know that I already said that the history of Christianity is just as bloody as the history of Islam. Christianity has been de-fanged and de-clawed. It's time to do the same with Islam.

The last is in the Bible, therefore, it is gospel. Most of the Bible was written after Jesus was dead.

It is based on an event that occurred after Jesus died - a series of dreams by John of Patmos. There is conjecture among Christians whether John of Patmos was even John the apostle. In any case, the last book of the Bible is a prophecy about events that have not occurred yet. Is it violent? Absolutely. Does it constitute any sort of "command" to Christians to fight disbelievers? Not in any way.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

First, you need to understand that it is not WE who connect the acts of terrorists with Islam. The terrorists themselves do this. They claim they act by command of Allah. They quote the Quran to prove it. When you say their actions have nothing to do with Islam, I don't have to argue that point with you. THEY will argue it.

Terrorists don't argue with me about whether Islam condones their acts. It's people in the west who believe them and, in essence, follow them, by relating more to them than to non-violent Muslims. Every time someone insists that Islam is the reason terrorists do harm, they echo their ideology, elevate it, and strengthen their views in the minds of others who are not aware of what Islam really is. They even become more like them by learning to hate.

[Pooky 3,365]

Well I'll think about it, but I'm not sure you can legitimately consider the points removed from how they are made, why they are made, what order they're made in, by whom they are made, etc.

Well, they're either factual, or not. There is no real middle ground here.

When you mention that disregarding what someone you disagree with writes simply because you disagree with their POV is a cheap tactic--I can see that. But there's also something that rings pretty cheap about demanding refutation for things that would never be posed were it not for an intolerant agenda. The next part, which you enacted, is accusing the person who refuses to refute of not being able to do so. And MM wins by default! Body slam!!

But MM doesn't win by default. What I'm trying to encourage is reasoned argument. Discounting the entirety of what someone wrote because you disagree with who wrote it doesn't count as reasoned argument. It's just lazy. Because when the admission is made that the facts quoted were just that, facts, it diminishes the credibility of the person who initially dismissed the article. The worst part is that just because the instances quoted by MM are factual doesn't prove her premise, it just means she did the research to get her facts right.

You have to understand that seeing a source article from Michelle Malkin is, for some of us, like seeing that an essay was written by Foghorn Leghorn. A complete cartoon. Mr. Leghorn might have some interesting insights, but his history as a mischief maker and Dawg abuser makes him a total joke.

Then the option is there not to enter a discussion. If an overwhelming bias and intolerance for a commentator's viewpoint is pre-existing, I'd suggest the best policy is to remain silent. However, there are some in this community, who appear congenitally incapable of passing up the chance for a bunfight.

If in order to enter a thread, we have to seriously debate the arguments in the OP and scrutinize nothing else/more, I'll have to check out of this one. But I think it's important to consider the agenda behind the article, just as I would the agenda of of the OP and his pattern of posts, if that agenda were less obvious. We ain't in a vacuum, you know?

I thought the idea of the Politics and Religion forum was just that, to entertain serious discussion. Which is why the decent alcohol thread is buried somewhere in the UK forum.

Edited September 13, 2010 by Pooky

[Sofiyya 1,687]

BTW, Jim. My interpretations are more authoritative than OBL's. I have the ijaza to issue them, and he doesn't. Why is it that you dismiss my interpretation, but expect me to accept yours of either Bible passages, Quranic verses or ahadith? Where does your expertise come from when you are a follower of neither faith? Since you are not a Muslim, nor a respecter of the faith, your rejection of any interpretation other than the ones that are self-serving is expected. You have no motivation to elevate Islam.

I am, however, wondering why you have such a need to protect Christianity to the point of stating that parts of it don't really count. That's a very strange use of the narrative, but then, you do need to make excuses, not theological sense.

Edited September 13, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Pooky 3,365]

Terrorists don't argue with me about whether Islam condones their acts. It's people in the west who believe them ...

The problem is not that people in the west believe that. The problem is that the terrorists believe it.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

But MM doesn't win by default. What I'm trying to encourage is reasoned argument.

Oh, honey. Don't hurt yourself

The problem is not that people in the west believe that. The problem is that the terrorists believe it.

No, there is a big problem with people in the west believing it. They are joining forces with the terrorists, and that's a problem.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Terrorists don't argue with me about whether Islam condones their acts. It's people in the west who believe them and, in essence, follow them, by relating more to them than to non-violent Muslims. Every time someone insists that Islam is the reason terrorists do harm, they echo their ideology, elevate it, and strengthen their views in the minds of others who are not aware of what Islam really is. They even become more like them by learning to hate.

I promise you no matter how much I hate Muslims an despise Islam (I don't but you need to claim I do to deflect attention from criticism of both) I will never strap on a bomb,

hijack an airplane, or so much as advocate anyone be beheaded or stoned to death, let alone participate in either. Criticism falls far short of your exaggerated 'worse than terrorists themselves' dodge.

[Pooky 3,365]

Oh, honey. Don't hurt yourself

I won't. I leave that to others on this thread.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I promise you no matter how much I hate Muslims an despise Islam (I don't but you need to claim I do to deflect attention from criticism of both) I will never strap on a bomb,

hijack an airplane, or so much as advocate anyone be beheaded or stoned to death, let alone participate in either. Criticism falls far short of your exaggerated 'worse than terrorists themselves' dodge.

Time will tell.

[Ban Hammer 12,866]

politics does not make strange bedfellows - religion does. i never thought i'd see mc and sofiyya on the same team one day.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

politics does not make strange bedfellows - religion does. i never thought i'd see mc and sofiyya on the same team one day.

That is a miracle, eh lol. She's doing well, too.